To engage or not to engage? A qualitative investigation into educators’ and learners’ perspectives on AI in tourism higher education

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to build a clearer and more empirical cognitive framework to analyze artificial intelligence (AI) engagement in tourism higher education, improving the quality and efficiency of teaching and learning while minimizing misuse and contributing to the development of future tourism education strategies. Design/methodology/approach Using a qualitative research design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 58 participants (30 students and 28 teachers) from tourism higher education institutions. Thematic analysis was adopted in analyzing the data, guided by an extended school engagement theory framework. Findings This study highlights how educators and learners view the integration of AI in education across five dimensions. Behavioral engagement shows widespread AI use among two groups, with students exhibiting higher acceptance and dependence. Cognitive engagement indicates that both groups view AI as a supportive tool, not a replacement for human thinking – students use it for information retrieval, while teachers view AI as an aid to transforming teaching and curriculum. Emotional engagement is generally positive but contains concerns about over-reliance, academic integrity, etc. Usability and normative engagements emphasize the integration of core constructs from established technology acceptance models into a pedagogical engagement framework, underscoring the need for theoretical guidance from critical digital pedagogy to regulate AI use in tourism education. Originality/value While prior studies have examined AI engagement primarily at the individual and technical levels, this study introduces a social environment perspective to provide a more comprehensive account of how educators and learners engage with AI. Furthermore, while numerous studies have separately examined teachers’ and students’ perceptions of AI, this research simultaneously compares the viewpoints of both groups.

Ähnliche Arbeiten